Evaluation of 'implications for research' statements in systematic reviews of interventions in advanced cancer patients - a meta-research study

Ref ID 1059
First Author W. Siemens
Journal BMC MEDICAL RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Year Of Publishing 2023
URL https://bmcmedresmethodol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12874-023-02124-y
Keywords Oncology
Certainty
Problem(s) Inconclusive or lack of recommendations
Interpreted without considering certainty or overall quality of the evidence base
Number of systematic reviews included 261
Summary of Findings The majority of systematic reviews (88.9%) were not Cochrane Reviews, most of them with a critically low methodological quality according to AMSTAR 2 (88.1%). Systematic reviews with and without an IfR statement were comparable for most characteristics, e.g., patients, control, and primary outcome of review. Concepts underlying GRADE domains to describe the shortcomings of the body of evidence of an outcome were rarely used to derive IfR: ‘risk of bias’ (n = 2, 1.0%), ‘imprecision’ (n = 1, 0.5%), and ‘inconsistency’ (n = 1, 0.5%).
Did the article find that the problem(s) led to qualitative changes in interpretation of the results? Not Applicable
Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study?